D&D 5E WotC's Jeremy Crawford Talks D&D Alignment Changes

Jeremy Crawford has spoken about changes to the way alignment will be referred to in future D&D books. It starts with a reminder that no rule in D&D dictates your alignment.

Data from D&D Beyond in June 2019​

(Note that in the transcript below, the questions in quotes were his own words but presumably refer to questions he's seen asked previously).

Friendly reminder: no rule in D&D mandates your character's alignment, and no class is restricted to certain alignments. You determine your character's moral compass. I see discussions that refer to such rules, yet they don't exist in 5th edition D&D.

Your character's alignment in D&D doesn't prescribe their behavior. Alignment describes inclinations. It's a roleplaying tool, like flaws, bonds, and ideals. If any of those tools don't serve your group's bliss, don't use them. The game's system doesn't rely on those tools.

D&D has general rules and exceptions to those rules. For example, you choose whatever alignment you want for your character at creation (general rule). There are a few magic items and other transformative effects that might affect a character's alignment (exceptions).

Want a benevolent green dragon in your D&D campaign or a sweet werewolf candlemaker? Do it. The rule in the Monster Manual is that the DM determines a monster's alignment. The DM plays that monster. The DM decides who that monster is in play.

Regarding a D&D monster's alignment, here's the general rule from the Monster Manual: "The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster's alignment to suit the needs of your campaign."

"What about the Oathbreaker? It says you have to be evil." The Oathbreaker is a paladin subclass (not a class) designed for NPCs. If your DM lets you use it, you're already being experimental, so if you want to play a kindhearted Oathbreaker, follow your bliss!

"Why are player characters punished for changing their alignment?" There is no general system in 5th-edition D&D for changing your alignment and there are no punishments or rewards in the core rules for changing it. You can just change it. Older editions had such rules.

Even though the rules of 5th-edition D&D state that players and DMs determine alignment, the suggested alignments in our books have undeniably caused confusion. That's why future books will ditch such suggestions for player characters and reframe such things for the DM.

"What about the werewolf's curse of lycanthropy? It makes you evil like the werewolf." The DM determines the alignment of the werewolf. For example, the werewolf you face might be a sweetheart. The alignment in a stat block is a suggestion to the DM, nothing more.

"What about demons, devils, and angels in D&D? Their alignments can't change." They can change. The default story makes the mythological assumptions we expect, but the Monster Manual tells the DM to change any monster's alignment without hesitation to serve the campaign.

"You've reminded us that alignment is a suggestion. Does that mean you're not changing anything about D&D peoples after all?" We are working to remove racist tropes from D&D. Alignment is only one part of that work, and alignment will be treated differently in the future.

"Why are you telling us to ignore the alignment rules in D&D?" I'm not. I'm sharing what the alignment rules have been in the Player's Handbook & Monster Manual since 2014. We know that those rules are insufficient and have changes coming in future products.

 

[SavageCole]

None of this is really the point (no offense). Other games aren't D&D.

Other games do not use the six abilities of D&D.
Other games do not use levels.
Other games do not use hit points.
Other games do not use saving throws.
Other games do not use the d20.
Other games do not use a "class" system.

...and so on. As JC pointed out (and as others have noted), alignment really is just a vestigial tail in the game now. If you don't use it, there are no mechanical impacts.

The only reason for its continued inclusion is because D&D has always had alignment. shrug Whether they just want to state this even more explicitly in the rules (ALIGNMENT REALLY, REALLY DOESN'T MATTER) or just drop it, it's just legacy words in 5e.

Now how could one take offense to such a dismissive tone.

Maybe it’s not THE point (i.e. the one that matters to you), but I do think it’s a worthwhile contribution to note that Alignment can be a useful “gauge” on a dashboard that a DM uses to pilot a game. We seem to be in violent agreement that it’s not mechanically necessary.

I’m not sure why you raise the (stretched) uniqueness of D&D in this conversation. When discussing potential “changes” to a game’s design, I think it’s perfectly sensible to look to other game design examples. Obviously 5e’s current design been heavily influenced by other games.

 

[Oofta]

For all of the trashing of alignment, I think people are ignoring something. The current version of the game is incredibly popular. I think part of that is because of overall simplicity we get out of the box . Alignment is a quick to grasp and easy to explain in a sentence or two. At the same time, it really is completely optional.

The ease of adjusting the game to suit your personal preference is a major strength, not a weakness. I like alignment because with 2 characters I get a quick understanding of what NPCs and monsters are like by default. I can glance at that and have a decent judge of how they're going to respond and act. It's fast, simple, reliable.

Is it nuanced? Detailed? Heck no. But most of the time I don't need or want that nuance or detail. When I do? Then I'll make notes and create fluff that has nothing to do with a coded system of set values of any kind, they'll be unique to that actor.

So reinforce that alignment is just a guideline, point out the paragraph in the MM that alignment is a default and not a straight jacket. But keep those little 2 characters as a quick descriptor, it's not a sacred cow it's a quick lookup guide with a ton of meaning packed in.

 

[Azzy]

I recently saw a self-professed fan taking Tom Morello to task because he was being too political for a guitarist; it was ruining the fan’s enjoyment of his music.

...Tom Morello...

...who has a degree in political science from Harvard and became famous for being the guitarist for Rage Against the Machine, arguably the most visible & famous political bands of the past several decades.

There have been people that complain when some punk band gets political and then says that punk shouldn't be political. I want slap them upside the head with the Clash and the Dead Kennedys (for starters) until they get a clue.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I’m not sure why you raise the (stretched) uniqueness of D&D in this conversation. When discussing potential “changes” to a game’s design, I think it’s perfectly sensible to look to other game design examples. Obviously 5e’s current design been heavily influenced by other games.

"You know, I'm not sure why you care about the shape of the bottle. Or the red and white. Or the occasional polar bear imagery. Or the particular typeface used.

Really, Coca Cola is just another kind of sugar water, so why does any of this matter? Why bother with the (stretched) uniqueness of Coca Cola?"

It's not my job to define D&D; but clearly, D&D is doing something right that other games aren't. That doesn't mean that D&D can't, or shouldn't, borrow and steal from other games.

But when you are the market leader, you should be paying a lot more attention to the things (both good and bad) that make you different, not thinking about the ways you can be the same.

 

[Umbran]

Well- Miracle Whip is not mayonnaise, but it has its uses. Mayo goes well with meat, like lunchmeat or on a burger, while Miracle Whip pairs well with peanut butter.

Please take that to the "Unusual Sandwiches" thread. Put that kind of thing here without a warning, and we'll have someone barfing on their keyboard. 'Cuz... eww.

 

[FrogReaver]

For all of the trashing of alignment, I think people are ignoring something. The current version of the game is incredibly popular. I think part of that is because of overall simplicity we get out of the box . Alignment is a quick to grasp and easy to explain in a sentence or two. At the same time, it really is completely optional.

The ease of adjusting the game to suit your personal preference is a major strength, not a weakness. I like alignment because with 2 characters I get a quick understanding of what NPCs and monsters are like by default. I can glance at that and have a decent judge of how they're going to respond and act. It's fast, simple, reliable.

Is it nuanced? Detailed? Heck no. But most of the time I don't need or want that nuance or detail. When I do? Then I'll make notes and create fluff that has nothing to do with a coded system of set values of any kind, they'll be unique to that actor.

So reinforce that alignment is just a guideline, point out the paragraph in the MM that alignment is a default and not a straight jacket. But keep those little 2 characters as a quick descriptor, it's not a sacred cow it's a quick lookup guide with a ton of meaning packed in.

My group flat out ignores alignment for PC's. Traditional alignment has never made sense to me personally. That said I understand why some like traditional alignment. The ability to know who is okay to fight and who is not. It's a way of simplifying the morality of the gameworld. It's also a fairly good guardrail for new players and/or immature players as they can be prone to having their characters behave very erratically just because they have the freedom to do so. Alignment can help reign that in.

 

[FrogReaver]

There have been people that complain when some punk band gets political and then says that punk shouldn't be political. I want slap them upside the head with the Clash and the Dead Kennedys (for starters) until they get a clue.

I don't like when anything gets very political. This applies to entertainers/businesses/RPG's/etc.

 

[Umbran]

For all of the trashing of alignment, I think people are ignoring something. The current version of the game is incredibly popular. I think part of that is because of overall simplicity we get out of the box . Alignment is a quick to grasp and easy to explain in a sentence or two. At the same time, it really is completely optional.

So, that's an interesting point.

But, the problem is that while the popularity of the game is high, I don't think we can trace that to any particular feature.

Alignment, now, is very simple.. But back in the day, how many arguments over what behavior constituted what alignment were there? Answer: tons. Experienced gamers the world over could not, based on alignment, agree on how a paladin should behave, for example.

Which can just as easily work against your suggestion - the power may not be in "alignment is simple". It may be "alignment is now meaningless to the player" that is at work. Its removal may be making the game more popular.

 

[Rafael Martin]

 

[Aldarc]

Am I the only person who would rejoice for the end of terribly constructed alignment (and Myers-Briggs) memes?